dayman Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) And since I am critical of Romney often I'll post the article that I just recently read where I actually saw him talking common sense. It's strange I see the man talk common sense and applaud him for it but that's the modern GOP for ya... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/romney-spending-cuts-depression-tea-party_n_1545933.html Edited June 1, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 And since I am critical of Romney often I'll post the article that I just recently read where I actually saw him talking common sense. It's strange I see the man talk common sense and applaud him for it but that's the modern GOP for ya... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/romney-spending-cuts-depression-tea-party_n_1545933.html I don't think he's arguing contrary to the Tea Party. I think even they know that spending cuts would trigger a depression. They just don't give a ****. Romney is the only one who has repeatedly pushed for reforming the entitlements out of the two. And that'll die on the vine, once the insect of optimism again gets splattered over the windshield of reality (cf. "Hope and Change", "Closing Gitmo", "No Nation Building", etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 While York pretty much mails it in with this article, he's also supporting the crux of this thread: Obama desperately misses the milquetoast McCain campaign. That "fever," Obama said, will make this presidential race against GOP nominee Mitt Romney particularly contentious -- in contrast to the last time, when Obama faced an opponent, McCain, who declined to engage in the kind of hard-hitting fight that many of his Republican supporters hoped he would. "I mean, 2008 was a significant election, obviously," Obama told the audience at a Minneapolis restaurant called Bachelor Farmer. "But John McCain believed in climate change. John believed in campaign finance reform. He believed in immigration reform. I mean, there were some areas where you saw some overlap." It's interesting and funny to me that, as Obama sees it, the problem is that his opponent doesn't agree with HIM on more items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Romney is running a very disciplined and spectacular campaign. He isn't giving into the salaciousness and "red meat" stuffs that typically accompany the campaign season in June-September (with October, November being the "close the sale" time unless you're H.W. and you have a Willie Horton in your pocket). With that said, I can't stand Romney's !@#$ing smug plastic-queer persona, his schhit-eating grin, his 'just for men' perfectly placed grey streak in his Jimmy Johnson head, or his fake do nothing, entitled, privileged, silver spoon, sackless, spineless, ethos. He probably wears a Breitling or Tag Heuer time-piece and thinks it's the schit. !@#$ him. In his heart of hearts, all the fluff and pagentry aside, I think the guy is an opportunistic liberal who found an angle. Romney already has my vote because, from a policy and "direction of the country" standpoint, I really don't want to see Obama get another term in office, but why does the alternative have to be so pathetic and noxious? Why did they have to force Buddy Roemer out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Romney is running a very disciplined and spectacular campaign. He isn't giving into the salaciousness and "red meat" stuffs that typically accompany the campaign season in June-September (with October, November being the "close the sale" time unless you're H.W. and you have a Willie Horton in your pocket). With that said, I can't stand Romney's !@#$ing smug plastic-queer persona, his schhit-eating grin, his 'just for men' perfectly placed grey streak in his Jimmy Johnson head, or his fake do nothing, entitled, privileged, silver spoon, sackless, spineless, ethos. He probably wears a Breitling or Tag Heuer time-piece and thinks it's the schit. !@#$ him. In his heart of hearts, all the fluff and pagentry aside, I think the guy is an opportunistic liberal who found an angle. Romney already has my vote because, from a policy and "direction of the country" standpoint, I really don't want to see Obama get another term in office, but why does the alternative have to be so pathetic and noxious? Why did they have to force Buddy Roemer out? Wait, you don't think that Barry has a smug persona, a schhit-eating grin, or has a sackless, spineless ethos? And for awhile, the presidential race has been a matter of electing what you believe is the lesser of two evils. But that doesn't always work, as we found out last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 With that said, I can't stand Romney's !@#$ing smug plastic-queer persona, his schhit-eating grin, his 'just for men' perfectly placed grey streak in his Jimmy Johnson head, or his fake do nothing, entitled, privileged, silver spoon, sackless, spineless, ethos. He probably wears a Breitling or Tag Heuer time-piece and thinks it's the schit. I would tend to agree with most of this, so I have no problem making a recommendation to help you. Every time you get that feeling that Romney is a slick, smug, square-jawed automaton, close you eyes and remember watching John McCain debate Barack Obama. McCain was every Tim Conway old man character from every season of The Carol Burnett Show rolled into an undisciplined campaigner. Every time I think of McCain, I feel better about Romney. Not preferred, but all we have this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Wait, you don't think that Barry has a smug persona, a schhit-eating grin, or has a sackless, spineless ethos? And for awhile, the presidential race has been a matter of electing what you believe is the lesser of two evils. But that doesn't always work, as we found out last time. Please put this in context: 1. Smug persona/Over-confidence - Yes. 2. Schhit-eating grin - No. 3. Sackless ethos - No. 4. Spineless ethos - No. 5. Limited understanding of business? - Yes. 6. Profound innability to re-direct the country economically? - Yes. 7. The wrong people advising him? - Yes. 8. Nice Guy? - Yes. 9. Should he have been elected president? - No. 10. Will he improve as a president? - No. That is the difference between Romney and Obama. I think that Obama is a genuinely nice person with good intentions. I just think he is doing a bad job of putting the pieces together and he is not likely to improve. The country can't afford that. I think Romney is a spineless, privileged, rich boy who is personally odious but is a good enough puppet and has enough bequeathed silver-spoon experience to surround himself with people who have a clue and can get things moving in the right direction. So I'll vote for Romney. But only because the choices suck so bad. I would tend to agree with most of this, so I have no problem making a recommendation to help you. Every time you get that feeling that Romney is a slick, smug, square-jawed automaton, close you eyes and remember watching John McCain debate Barack Obama. McCain was every Tim Conway old man character from every season of The Carol Burnett Show rolled into an undisciplined campaigner. Every time I think of McCain, I feel better about Romney. Not preferred, but all we have this time around. I agree with this 100%. Romney is everything that McCain wasn't with respect to discipline and campaign skills. I just wish that Romney had McCain's character, consistency, and sticktoitiveness - but then that would be Jeb Bush. Bush, sadly, won't run. Edited June 4, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Please put this in context: 1. Smug persona/Over-confidence - Yes. 2. Schhit-eating grin - No. 3. Sackless ethos - No. 4. Spineless ethos - No. 5. Limited understanding of business? - Yes. 6. Profound innability to re-direct the country economically? - Yes. 7. The wrong people advising him? - Yes. 8. Nice Guy? - Yes. 9. Should he have been elected president? - No. 10. Will he improve as a president? - No. That is the difference between Romney and Obama. I think that Obama is a genuinely nice person with good intentions. I just think he is doing a bad job of putting the pieces together and he is not likely to improve. The country can't afford that. I think Romney is a spineless, privileged, rich boy who is personally odious but is a good enough puppet and has enough bequeathed silver-spoon experience to surround himself with people who have a clue and can get things moving in the right direction. So I'll vote for Romney. But only because the choices suck so bad. We'll agree to disagree on the "spineless/sackless ethos" and the "schit-eating grin." Especially since I don't think Romney's is so much schit-eating as it's "smile for the cameras, Mitt!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 We'll agree to disagree on the "spineless/sackless ethos" and the "schit-eating grin." Especially since I don't think Romney's is so much schit-eating as it's "smile for the cameras, Mitt!" Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I just saw this Gallup poll in RCP. No matter how much Obama cries that the rich, evil GOP simply doesn't care about the middle class...and only wants to see the middle class die...there sits Romney with a 4-point lead over Obama with the so-called middle class voters. I would not be surprised to see Obama kick Axelrod to the curb if they lose the Wisconsin recall today. I know Obama has avoided that like the plague, but Axelrod has been ass-deep...getting Wasserman-Shultz and Bubba to campaign there, and with Wisconsin suddenly in play, it would seem like time for Obama's campaign to give itself a reset button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Romney is running a very disciplined and spectacular campaign. He isn't giving into the salaciousness and "red meat" stuffs that typically accompany the campaign season in June-September (with October, November being the "close the sale" time unless you're H.W. and you have a Willie Horton in your pocket). With that said, I can't stand Romney's !@#$ing smug plastic-queer persona, his schhit-eating grin, his 'just for men' perfectly placed grey streak in his Jimmy Johnson head, or his fake do nothing, entitled, privileged, silver spoon, sackless, spineless, ethos. He probably wears a Breitling or Tag Heuer time-piece and thinks it's the schit. !@#$ him. In his heart of hearts, all the fluff and pagentry aside, I think the guy is an opportunistic liberal who found an angle. Romney already has my vote because, from a policy and "direction of the country" standpoint, I really don't want to see Obama get another term in office, but why does the alternative have to be so pathetic and noxious? Why did they have to force Buddy Roemer out? Because in the end it all comes down to a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Look at the alternative here in Obama. He's as snooty as hell. I would tend to agree with most of this, so I have no problem making a recommendation to help you. Every time you get that feeling that Romney is a slick, smug, square-jawed automaton, close you eyes and remember watching John McCain debate Barack Obama. McCain was every Tim Conway old man character from every season of The Carol Burnett Show rolled into an undisciplined campaigner. Every time I think of McCain, I feel better about Romney. Not preferred, but all we have this time around. In the end though, who did the GOP put up that was better than Romney? He's really the only one with any electability. I would have been all about Huntsman but he didn't even see the light of day. Now I feel like I'm going to have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I would not be surprised to see Obama kick Axelrod to the curb if they lose the Wisconsin recall today. I know Obama has avoided that like the plague, but Axelrod has been ass-deep...getting Wasserman-Shultz and Bubba to campaign there, and with Wisconsin suddenly in play, it would seem like time for Obama's campaign to give itself a reset button. This won't happen. This is Chicago politics.......lets just say that the Candidate doesn't get to "decide" everything. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I just saw this Gallup poll in RCP. No matter how much Obama cries that the rich, evil GOP simply doesn't care about the middle class...and only wants to see the middle class die...there sits Romney with a 4-point lead over Obama with the so-called middle class voters. I would not be surprised to see Obama kick Axelrod to the curb if they lose the Wisconsin recall today. I know Obama has avoided that like the plague, but Axelrod has been ass-deep...getting Wasserman-Shultz and Bubba to campaign there, and with Wisconsin suddenly in play, it would seem like time for Obama's campaign to give itself a reset button. No way the Dem's win the recall there. There shouldn't even be a recall. I don't agree with Walker's policies. But the fact of the matter is that Walker was democratically elected and did exactly what he said he was gonna do. You don't like it? Too bad. Do more research next time before you pull the lever. If I were a resident of Wis. I would be going to vote today... For Walker. Not because I agree with him, but because we don't recall based on stupidity of voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I would have been all about Huntsman but he didn't even see the light of day. Huntsman never had a chance because too many liberals were saying how much they liked him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 No way the Dem's win the recall there. There shouldn't even be a recall. I don't agree with Walker's policies. But the fact of the matter is that Walker was democratically elected and did exactly what he said he was gonna do. You don't like it? Too bad. Do more research next time before you pull the lever. If I were a resident of Wis. I would be going to vote today... For Walker. Not because I agree with him, but because we don't recall based on stupidity of voters. I can respect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Huntsman never had a chance because too many liberals were saying how much they liked him. That's because they knew Jon Huntsman was the guy they could easily beat. Mitt Romney looked as loose as a young, sex-crazed Hugh Hefner compared to the incredibly stiff and incredibly dull Huntsman. It's not an insult to the guy who seemed nice enough and qualified, it's just how it played out. Huntsman was the liberals' 2012 "John McCain" model. As soon as he won the primary the liberals would have torn Huntsman to shreds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Because in the end it all comes down to a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Look at the alternative here in Obama. He's as snooty as hell. In the end though, who did the GOP put up that was better than Romney? He's really the only one with any electability. I would have been all about Huntsman but he didn't even see the light of day. Now I feel like I'm going to have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Obama. Which is which? At least Romney has run a business before, whereas Barry has done nothing but organize a community, and we're seeing the results. If you're looking to continue his efforts to destroy the country, by all means, pull that lever for him. But as the old Einstein saying goes, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 The more and more I hear and read about Bill Clinton, the more convinced I am he wants obama to lose. Badly!! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77037.html http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/05/Clinton-Slams-Obama-Im-the-Only-Guy-Who-Gave-You-Four-Surplus-Budgets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5UBMg5mn4I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Which is which? At least Romney has run a business before, whereas Barry has done nothing but organize a community, and we're seeing the results. If you're looking to continue his efforts to destroy the country, by all means, pull that lever for him. But as the old Einstein saying goes, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." That is the most commonly mis-attributed quotation ever. Einstein never said anything of the sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 That is the most commonly mis-attributed quotation ever. Einstein never said anything of the sort. He should have. It's up there with his theory of relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts